Plaintiff

The Minister of Health and Welfare

June 9, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap25626 decided October 14, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of a penalty surcharge of KRW 25,482,600 against the plaintiff on September 2, 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

With respect to the plaintiff's claim that the disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner, the defendant raised the lawsuit of this case with the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit of this case, and thus, it should be dismissed.

B. Relevant legal principles

In full view of the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 18 of the former Administrative Appeals Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9968, Jan. 25, 2010), a litigation for revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the existence of a disposition, etc. is known: Provided, That where a claim for administrative appeal may be filed, it shall be calculated from the date on which the original copy of the written ruling is served. However, in order to calculate the period of a litigation for revocation as of the date on which a written ruling, which is not the standard market price of disposition, is served, the request for administrative appeal shall be lawful; however, where the request for administrative appeal is filed even 90 days from the date on which the existence of the disposition is known, or where it is illegal such as being filed after 1

C. Determination on the instant case

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 7, the defendant delivered the written disposition of this case to the plaintiff on September 4, 2009 by registered mail. The plaintiff received it on September 7, 2009. ② The plaintiff submitted a written administrative appeal to the administrative appeals commission under the Prime Minister on December 28, 2009, which was 90 days after the plaintiff submitted the written appeal to the administrative appeals commission under the Prime Minister on December 28, 2009. The above commission made a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's request for administrative appeal after the expiration of the period of time of March 16, 2010. ③ The fact of filing the lawsuit of this case on June 17, 2010, which was after the plaintiff received the written judgment. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was aware of the fact of this case on September 7, 2009, since the above administrative appeal became unlawful after the plaintiff was filed for the administrative appeal of this case after the lapse of September 90.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Yan Jung-hun (Presiding Judge)